get_analytics

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not state that the tool is read-only, what data it returns, how it aggregates, or any limitations. It only lists metrics, which is insufficient for understanding side effects, return behavior, or operational constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short, but it is not a well-structured sentence; it is a comma-separated list of nouns. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity. This is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness, as it fails to convey the tool's function in a complete grammatical form.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), a brief description might suffice, but it must still clarify what the tool returns and how it fits among the many analytics-related sibling tools. The current description does not explain the scope, aggregation, or purpose, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has zero properties, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to document, the description is not expected to add parameter details. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate, though additionalProperties: true hints at unvalidated inputs, but that is outside the description's responsibility.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Views, visitors, top pages, referrers' is a noun phrase without a verb, so it does not clearly state what the tool does. It lists potential data fields but leaves the action ambiguous. While the tool name 'get_analytics' implies retrieval, the description itself lacks a specific verb+resource structure, making it vague and barely distinguishable from a generic content list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings like get_ai_usage, get_page_journeys, or get_top_visitors. The description provides no context for appropriate use, no exclusions, and no alternatives, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.